R v BH

The defendant, BH, was convicted on 14 counts of child sexual abuse against his biological daughter, who was aged between 6 and 8 years at the time of the offences. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal, where the Crown appealed against the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge, claiming it was manifestly inadequate. The Crown's appeal focused on the disparity between the sentence imposed and the severity of the offending, as well as the need for appropriate sentencing guidance for such cases.

The central legal issue for the court to determine was whether the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was manifestly inadequate, given the nature and circumstances of the offences. The court needed to consider the appropriate range for indicative sentences for this type of offending, as well as the standard non-parole period for each offence. The Crown argued that the head sentence imposed for all of the offending was less than the standard non-parole period for one of the 13 counts of sexual intercourse with a child under 10 years, and that the aggregate sentence was an affront to the administration of justice.

The Court of Appeal found that the indicative sentences for 10 offences were at the mid-range and above mid-range, which were far below the proper range of sentences for such offending. The court noted that clear guidance on the appropriate range for indicative sentences for this type of offending was recently provided in Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v TH [2023] NSWCCA 81. The Court held that the head sentence for all of the offending was less than the standard non-parole period for one of the 13 counts of sexual intercourse with a child under 10 years, and that the aggregate sentence was manifestly inadequate. The Court allowed the Crown's appeal and ordered that BH be resentenced.

The final orders of the Court of Appeal were that the appeal against sentence be allowed, and that BH be resentenced by the sentencing judge or a different judge of the Supreme Court. The Court emphasised the need for appropriate sentencing guidance for such cases, and the importance of ensuring that sentences reflect the seriousness of the offending and the protection of the community.